Report Inappropriate Comments

Straightfacts homie,

First of all, are you aware of the errors in the contract language pertaining to vacations? You stated, and the chief stated that the contract specifies that the maximum number of men that can be on vacation is 6 at any time. Am I correct? Of course I am. However, that is not what the contract states. The contract states as follows:

A MINIMUM of six (6) employees per platoon shall be allowed on vacation during July and

August.

Do you see the contract verbiage error? It states A MINIMUM !!! NOT MAXIMUM.

Another clause - At other times of the year when manpower is available and no

overtime is incurred as a result, a MINIMUMof six (6) employees per platoon shall be

allowed on vacation.

No where in the contract does it state anything using the terms MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON VACATION.

So, whether it is a typo, or any other kind of an error, there is clearly language in the contract that has been mis-interpreted.

Under contract law in the state of RI, there were 439 shifts that had less than 6 men on vacation. There were 68 shifts that had more than 6 men on vacation. Typo or not, there is clearly issues with non -compliance to the contract language.

Further, there are NUMEROUS men who did not re=pay their changes of shift. NUMEROUS. For example, Delpozzo took 23 days change of shift, only worked 1 in return. Fontenault took 20, paid back 11, Silvia took 20, repaid 12, Lavoie took 22, repaid 18, Bellavance took 26, repaid 18. The list goes on and on, and now we wonder why the COS requests are being destroyed. These are the numbers right off the accountability sheets. You make lots of comments but show no statistics. Where are your statistics to counter mine? Im sure there are none

Then there was Salisbury which is a whole other story.